- From: Peter Kasting <pkasting@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:46:28 -0700
* I didn't say "5 years from Rec status" * Acid3 was meant to be an illustrative example of a case where the test itself was not intentionally introducing new behavior or attempting to force consensus on unwilling vendors, not a perfect analogy to something PK On Jun 30, 2009 12:36 PM, "Sam Kuper" <sam.kuper at uclmail.net> wrote: 2009/6/30 Peter Kasting <pkasting at google.com> > On Jun 30, 2009 2:17 AM, "Sam Kuper" <sam.kuper at uclmail.net> wrote: > > > 2009/6/30 Silvia Pfeiffe... > As a contributor to multiple browsers, I think it's important to note the distinctions between cases like Acid3 (where IIRC all tests were supposed to test specs that had been published with no dispute for 5 years), much of HTML5 (where items not yet implemented generally have agreement-on-principle from various vendors) and this issue, where vendors have publicly refused to implement particular cases. [...] I'd question, based on the following statements, whether your memory of Acid3 is correct: "Controversially, [Acid3] includes several elements from the CSS2 recommendation that were later removed in CSS2.1 but reintroduced in W3C CSS3 working drafts that have not made it to candidate recommendations yet."[1] "The following standards are tested by Acid3: [...] * SMIL 2.1 (subtests 75-76) [...]"[1] SMIL 2.1 became a W3C Recommendation in December 2005.[2] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronized_Multimedia_Integration_Language#SMIL_2.1 So, there is some precedent for the W3C to publish specs/tests, expecting browser vendors to catch up with them further down the line. Sam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090630/ef3feadd/attachment.htm>
Received on Tuesday, 30 June 2009 12:46:28 UTC